Thought I'd share this with you, I was not allowed to take my daughter to the toilet today on her school trip because the school had no CRB check for me. Told the teacher I was taking aforementioned child to the loo and was told firmly I could not. What on earth is the country coming to? :ugh:

Took her home instead - not sure they had a 'procedure' for that.

Utterly astonished and not a little upset either. :sad:

Captain Stable

21st Apr 2009, 18:54

The teacher doesn't know which way is up. You are perfectly at liberty to tell THEM they cannot take your daughter to the toilet - they are not entitled to stop you doing so.

I would write to them and insist that that teacher is removed from carrying out any school trips until he/she has found out a little more about the law.

I would also insist upon an apology, delivered personally, by both the head teacher and the teacher concerned.

Katamarino

21st Apr 2009, 19:04

I second what Captain Stable says :eek: Don't let these incompetent idiots treat you with such disrespect.

Sprogget

21st Apr 2009, 19:25

Too right. I would have taken her and let the idiot make the next move. You're her parent ffs:ugh:

This country is stuffed. I'm seriously thinking about leaving, what with the H&S nutters, the surveillance society, my daughter's future mortgaged to Fred Goodwin & the racket that was politics, I think I might trade up to Albania.

mr fish

21st Apr 2009, 20:23

just realised that when i bathed my baby daughter (she's now twenty!!),
i was unsupervised and I HAD MY EYES OPEN:eek:.

i dried her, then applied talc and a nappy, then, SAT HER ON MY KNEE!!!

sweet mother of god, I TOOK HER PICTURE!!!,

hanging's too good for me!!!:{

Overdrive

21st Apr 2009, 20:34

I was going to say "You wouldn't read about it", but...

This CRB debacle is expanding at an astonishing rate. Another psuedo-safety requirement that is really just another extension to the sad minimum-wage service industry, job creation scheme that used to be called Britain (not mentioning the other benefits to a control-obsessed regime).

I agree with the prior posts. NO-ONE would tell me what to do with my children.

Play their silly game in return qwertyplop: tell them you're considering suing for the "trauma" of embarassment experienced by your daughter, and will be forwarding a bill for her counselling.

jimtherev

21st Apr 2009, 22:21

Some years ago, I headed up a summer holiday scheme for sixty inner-city kids. Risk assessment written. All 20 staff Criminal Record checked, Policy document: sixty pages approved by Local Education Authority (I wrote the damn thing, & got it right first time. Well, almost)

Hot sun most days, but get this: neither I nor 'my staff' were allowed to apply sun cream, however young (like 6 y.o.) the child was. Assault, you know. (One of the amendments the LEA insisted on.)

But get this, when I protested the silliness of this policy, said LEA official told me that one of the child's friends - also six, for the sake of argument - was allowed to put on sun screen or even to administer a travel sickness pill.

And if someone falls over and needs comforting, don't even think of a cuddle.

That's assault, too.
Makesyersick.

qwertyplop

22nd Apr 2009, 00:05

Appalled I was.

A CRB check is only valid on the day it's done I'm told, there's no need to check it again for a few years. That's OK then, get it done today and go fiddling tomorrow. :mad:

Had a chat with the head teacher this evening, a 'right on' character if I ever came across one, she insists on this for the 'protection' of the children don't you know? I asked how on earth she can bear to let my little treasure out of her sight to come home with me at home time? Not surprisingly, she told me I was missing the point.

Question is - who protects us from fcukwits like her and the shamble of an administration she fronts up? :*

Come the revolution, she is getting put up against the wall and my list grows longer every day.

sisemen

22nd Apr 2009, 03:10

just realised that when i bathed my baby daughter (she's now twenty!!),

Yeah, I know what you meant but it might have been helpful (and less stressful on my pulse) to written something like....

...just realised that when she was a baby and I bathed my daughter (she's.....etc

:E

Muffin Themule

22nd Apr 2009, 04:11

How about

"When my 20 year old daughter was a babe ..."

belfrybat

22nd Apr 2009, 05:11

Not surprisingly, she told me I was missing the point.So did you ask what is the point? And if so, what did she say?

kiwi chick

22nd Apr 2009, 06:21

Hahaha Sisemen, good spotting!

Mr Fish, I've called Child Services. There should be a knock on your door soon. And I guess because of that I'd better dob in my ex husband as well.

When I went to watch my middle daughter swim at school, I was not allowed in the changing room to help her dry and brush her hair.

:ugh:

Blacksheep

22nd Apr 2009, 09:14

Its Wednesday so I have to pick up our grandson from 'Busy Bees' tonight on my way home from work. He's just two years old. To get him, I ring the doorbell to attract an eyeball to peer round the chained door and ask who I've come for. I give his name and group and the door closes while they fetch a carer from 'Tulips'. They peer round the door to make sure its really me and then release the chain and let me in. I get his daily activities report and put on his hat & coat and then I'm allowed to leave with him. (I assume this complicated procedure is on account of a two year old being incapable of recognising "Dan-dad".)

Now, I can't pass a criminal records check because I've been out of the country for a few years (being an expat is a serious offence). I wonder what would happen if anyone split on me? :uhoh:

larssnowpharter

22nd Apr 2009, 09:38

Last year, on our annual visit to the UK I was in the local park with Senora Lars and the Sproglettes. Sproglette 1 was coming down the slide and I decided to take a snap of her.

On the same trip went to watch nephew playing football. Pulled out camera and was told (by my sister an otherwise sensible lass) that I should not take photos without permission of the players on both teams.

Strewth

SpringHeeledJack

22nd Apr 2009, 09:52

I understand that certain safeguards need to be put into place to keep the few undesirables away from our future taxpayers, but isn't it a fact that most abuse comes from within the family ? It's a bit like elf and safety, it (this overparanoid protection) becomes a self propagating beast that gets ever more ridiculous and wasteful and further away from endearing good qualities into little minds.

On a side note, my sister in law's cousin ( an adult woman) took photos of SiL's baby at a family gathering, as you do, but then put photos on her page on Facebook and Bebo without asking permission and SiL is mightily p1ssed off. My advice was get them taken off asap and a stern talking to given, but perhaps, i too, am overeacting :confused:

Regards

SHJ

Scumbag O'Riley

22nd Apr 2009, 09:54

qwertyplop, just wait for them to make a mistake with their own petty procedures. Because they will, regularly. And then pursue it.

Curious Pax

22nd Apr 2009, 11:16

It's all a bit different in The Netherlands - regular occurrence for parents to photograph their kids having swimming lessons from the viewing balcony for example. The UK authorities would blow several gaskets if one tried that here!

On the other hand the Dutch school junior attended did send me a naughty boy note for putting a packet of crisps in his lunch (regarded them as sweeties apparently!).

keyboard flier

22nd Apr 2009, 12:26

As someone who works with young people on a voluntary basis we have permission to use their image in either photo or video and can be used to promote the group and organisation that they belong to. However in and event where there are several groups we must try and make sure that non members of our group are not included in photos.

Captain Stable

22nd Apr 2009, 12:33

And wherein, exactly, lies the danger in a child being photographed?

Davaar

22nd Apr 2009, 13:20

For some years I was honorary counsel to the national office here of an international charitable organisation. It does good work. In my "hon" job I attended an often tedious (three to four hours usually) monthly meeting of the board, advised on proposed contracts, employee relations, liability and risk, insurance, etc., etc. There was no pay, not that I did a whole lot really, but what I had to do, I did, and if I had charged, it would have added up.The service was the reward, for me and the rest.

All droobled along quietly. We made our modest contribution to society, most of us at an age that cannot even remember naughty thoughts, so far from going to the trouble of lurking, watching and besetting, or "interfering". Supposing we had, though, the best we could have made of running away would have been a gentle trot, those of us who do not have the walking-stick.

Then came The Flattery From On High. All directors and "hons" had to go for a police check followed by "sensitivity training".

That news was swiftly followed by resignations, my own among them. For months I wondered if someone might "put two and two together", as in "Now WHY did he resign? Huh? Huh?". The Gestapo 2.00 AM knock at the door seemed not beyond possibility.

We seem to have escaped, though. Society is safe. From us.

Blacksheep

22nd Apr 2009, 13:31

And wherein, exactly, lies the danger in a child being photographed? If the photos were published, the estimated 110,000 pedophiles (that's less than 0.002% of the population) in UK might be aroused to a frenzy by the images.

Scumbag O'Riley

22nd Apr 2009, 13:35

The Gestapo 2.00 AM knock at the door seemed not beyond possibility.

Interesting Davaar.

I live not far from a small town called Keyworth, a non-descript place which featured on the first episode of Crimewatch for a despicable crime. The police failed to find a suspect at the time and for twenty odd years since.

DNA was retained, technology advanced, and recently the police went around asking for DNA samples from all men to see if they could find a match. Had they come knocking on my door, and I live less than two miles away so I guess it was possible (except they found a match in Keyworth itself), I would have refused. The reason being I was not prepared to have my DNA on a governemnt database.

No doubt that would have made me a suspect. I wonder whether I would have been arrested on that basis alone and be forced to provide DNA, forced being the way it would be done when I refused to give voluntarily.

I don't know, and that is the worrying thing.

BlueDiamond

22nd Apr 2009, 13:37

just realised that when i bathed my baby daughter (she's now twenty!!),
i was unsupervised and I HAD MY EYES OPENhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/eek.gif.

i dried her, then applied talc and a nappy, then, SAT HER ON MY KNEE!!!

sweet mother of god, I TOOK HER PICTURE!!!,

hanging's too good for me!!!http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/boohoo.gif
Oh, you disgusting pervert you!!! :uhoh: := To think we have to put up with your sort on PPRuNe!!! http://209.85.12.227/html/emoticons/blink.gif :rolleyes:

Rossian

22nd Apr 2009, 13:38

Davaar

Might a more effective protest have been to do all the checks. Everyone passes and then...... resign en masse?

I don't think that officialdom in your country, or mine, can cope with the idea of volunteer service.

I do some voluntary work and over time the pettyfogging interference has steadily increased as the Scottish Executive has stuck its grubby fingers into the way things are done. It culminated with the announcement that we were to be checked by Her Majesty's Inspectors of schools. When I pointed out that if that occurred I'd be out the door with my stude as the man walked in, there were gasps around the table "But but....." Now all these good hearted ladies are worrying themselves sick and spending even more time on prep, and no-one is paid at all. And, of course some are leaving. So who benefits? No-one apart from some bureaucrats in Edinburgh.

Sometimes ah'm fair scunnered.
The Ancient Mariner

Rossian

22nd Apr 2009, 13:55

To look at this situation from another perspective.

My lad used to teach in a rough school in an inner city. He was accused by a 14 year old asian girl, in a letter written to the head, of being a pervert; after she'd been awarded detention. Then the race card was used. Serious stuff!
Fortunately for him, his head was a sensible person and waited to investigate a bit before suspending our lad.
On questioning (in the presence of her parents) it became apparent that she didn't really know what a pervert was. Why then use that word in an official letter? She'd been told by some older girls that "that's a good word to use to get a teacher into trouble". Mortified parents gather up daughter and are about to leave, when the head suggested that a written apology was in order from the girl. Spluttering and outrage from the parents but the head stuck to her guns. Monumentally relieved son.
There are literally thousands of teachers in this country at the moment suffering from a huge stigma, EVEN AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN EXONERATED, because their heads and unions have failed to stand up for them and these false accusations remain on their CRB records blighting their futures. It's sick!

The Ancient Mariner

Roger Sofarover

22nd Apr 2009, 13:59

It is all a very very sad reflection on society really. In order to prevent a few perverts doing what they do anyway, we bring in rules designed to destroy the fabric of a close warm family life. The title of the thread is very very apt, whilst parents are not permitted (nay prevented) to 'go and help their little one get dried and dressed at the pool', just what lee way does that give the pervs who have become carers behind closed doors with no parental access? The Criminal Record Check is idiotic. All it does is highlight people who have never been caught doing anything. Lets face it, in the UK, you will get a criminal record if you leave your bin out on the wrong day for collection. A whole host of 'offences' that are misdemeanours elsewhere in the world will have you labelled as a criminal in the UK.

As a father, if I wish to take my two year old daughter for a pee, dry her at the pool or whatever, then that is my right to do so, far beyond that of any carer. I would lay down my life for her in a heartbeat, not something that the average carer would do (or be expected to do for that matter), and that gives me my Human Right to take care of her, comfort her and help her grow into a caring, compassionate young lady. If anybody steps in my way of doing that I will definitely end up with a criminal record.

I spend the majority of my time now with my family in a country that in many respects is 30-40 years behind the UK, and you know what, it's fantastic.

Edited to add
I wonder whether I would have been arrested on that basis alone and be forced to provide DNA, forced being the way it would be done when I refused to give voluntarily.

That is a really interesting point. Can you be forced to provide DNA in such circumstances? If so how would they do it? Taking a mouth swab would not be practical if you are not a volunteer and sticking a needle in your arm without your approval is assault. Does anybody know?

Windy Militant

22nd Apr 2009, 14:04

Whilst it can be a bit over the top there are occasions when children may be at risk.
A few years ago while helping with a Scout air experience camp we were asked not to photograph a particular child. The individual concerned had been fostered from a family which had broken up due to one of the parents being violently abusive to the spouse and children. The abuser had absconded from the law and threatened revenge on the spouse. These threats also included the children.
The spouse had moved and had thought this particular ordeal was over, but the abusive partner tracked the family down through a picture of a school event which was posted on the Internet.
Fortunately before a revenge attack could take place there was some sort of tip off, but the miscreant stayed at large. The stress imposed on the parent meant that the children had to go into respite care.
Even though this child was a fair distance from it's foster home, clues could be gained as to it's home location from a photo of the event which eventually might lead to the abuser finding it.
Normal people think of photographs as a pleasant way to capture memories, however they can have far more sinister uses.

Blacksheep

22nd Apr 2009, 14:15

That's a particular incident Windy, and might I suggest, a very rare case. Does the fact that such rare cases happen justify the widespread interference with normal family life that we see today? Parents prevented from photographing their children or taking them to the toilet? Teachers prevented from applying sunscreen? Grandfathers being treated as though they are the devil incarnate?

The ridiculous mass paranoia gets worse by the day; heaven only knows what the long term effects on the children will be.

airship

22nd Apr 2009, 14:20

i dried her, then applied talc and a nappy, then, SAT HER ON MY KNEE!!!

sweet mother of god, I TOOK HER PICTURE!!!, How on earth did you manage that (or were you using a tripod and remote)...?! :E

More seriously, you'd only have to visit Google's Picasa photo-hosting site, type in "Bath" at the 'search photos' prompt (http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/view?q=Bath&psc=G&filter=1#) (because you were thinking of visiting the great Somerset city - nudge nudge, wink wink), before being presented with thumbnails of more or less naked children interspersed with a few of the city itself on the first few pages?! :eek: Admittedly, they're all a tad too young for my tastes. Should all those who post such 'innocent photos' in 'publicly-available' online albums be pursued? Should all those who download these images be 'locked away' as paedophiles? :confused:

When it comes to mostly 'government-employed' workers involved in the care of children however, I do understand the reasoning behind all the often mind-numbing and frustrating rules they're expected to apply. I reckon that maybe about 5% of these rules have something to do with the interests of the child, 95% are there solely to protect the 'government-employed' workers and their employer in the event of any civil or criminal charges that might be made. In other words, their main priority is protecting their own asses whilst (probably) leaving children to run around with horribly smelly and dirty backsides...?! :sad:

jimtherev

22nd Apr 2009, 17:06

Prompted by all of the above, I just checked my CRB and it expired in Feb. Means I shouldn't work for about 3 months while the w**kers in some office check I haven't been naughty since 2006 :uhoh:

Don't tell anyone, you lot!

gingernut

22nd Apr 2009, 20:30

It's patently obvious, that most of us are in the right, and the checks and balances put in place to prevent the tiny minority targetting children, are indeed, at the very least, cumbersome.

But I can't help thinking that we're missing the point.

Abuse of kids does take place, I'm afraid. And wrecks lives. And the abusers do target soft environments to gain the trust of others.

So if that means I have to be CRB checked, escorted to the loo or whatever, I don't mind. I've got nothing to hide.

Background Noise

22nd Apr 2009, 21:15

...or this mother not being allowed to travel to school in the taxi with her son. :confused:

Mother stopped from travelling with son in taxi to school - because she hasn't had a criminal record check | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1034024/Mother-stopped-travelling-son-taxi-school--criminal-record-check.html)

jimtherev

22nd Apr 2009, 22:59

...or this mother not being allowed to travel to school in the taxi with her son. :confused:

Mother stopped from travelling with son in taxi to school - because she hasn't had a criminal record check | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1034024/Mother-stopped-travelling-son-taxi-school--criminal-record-check.html)

From the Daily Mail piece:
'For the protection of the council and all vulnerable persons in its care it's essential all those endowed with an authority, implicit or explicit, should meet the security requirements within the transport contract provisions.'

The first six words say it all. CYA. :O

Keef

23rd Apr 2009, 01:22

I'd better dig out my CRB check and make sure it's not expired!

We had to go through all that "don't touch them, don't photograph them, don't..." palaver some years ago. The reasons given were, in my simple view, pathetic.

I replied: "I do this for pastoral reasons, and if someone want to cry on my shoulder, I'll let 'em. Young or old." I was told "You can't". I know I can, cos I did and still do.

Bally Heck

23rd Apr 2009, 02:25

Slightly on thread. Sorry! But delightfully, the watchers can watch me whenever they want.

Police beat up protesters and get caught on cam. Politicians get caught buying houses with public funds and get caught. I am innocent! (relatively) Quite frankly, you can watch any of my peccadilloes whenever you want. I love the surveillance state. Our "Masters" are on view so much more than we are.

Double edged sword! Bring it on!

Veeeffarr

23rd Apr 2009, 02:49

I’m digitised, watched over and on the database,
It looks as if there is a barcode on my face,
Not in my name, when last we went to war,
We badly need less government, not more.

My passport’s biometric RFI,
Can track me like a parcel every time I fly,
With cameras on the highway, so I do not break the law,
We badly need less government, not more.

Our shiny new police state wants to suck us dry,
Stifle dissent, erode freedom and democracy,
Should we complain, or take it on the jaw,
We badly need less government, not more.

Get back to work, completely fill your day,
Paying taxes to the leeches who would keep the hordes at bay,
But an MBA exported all the jobs to Bangalore,
We badly need less government, not more.

If there’s nought to hide, there’s nought to fear,
They’re after terrorists only, not those who were born here,
But if you’re British, you will soon be under martial law,
We badly need less government, not more.

So kick them out, revolt every seventh year,
Remove the spin, and make it happen here,
Keep on kicking till their fat backsides are sore,
We badly need less government, not more.

RJM

23rd Apr 2009, 12:58

Spot on, Veeeffarr.

Thankfully, we're not as far along that road as the poor old Poms yet.

It seems to me that while in the early 20th century there were clearly totalitarian social developments going on in the USSR and Nazi Germany, there were things happening in Britain which I think have borne dark fruit for the entire world of British law.

People like Lord Denning were slowly extending the reach of the law of negligence and the duty of care. Cases like Donoghue v Stevenson took the principle of other cases like Rylands v Fletcher and stretched the duty of care to new limits.

I'm not a lawyer, but I feel that today's environment of near paranoid risk management has its basis in those developments in the English common law.

The evolution of computers, databases and electronic surveillance equipment must have been a huge thrill for the peanuts who think that ever greater levels of supervision and control of our movements and activities make for a better society.

I personally have got no time for these twerps and the Orwellian, pan-opticon society they are building.

They can stick their CCTV's and police record requirements for parents. The state is here for us, not vice versa.

Ultimately they will come up against resistance. At least they will from me. I'm happy to let my fellow citizens go about their business without overview from me, and I expect the same in return.

Illegal activities are another thing - but still, I don't expect the 'authorities' or their minions or their remote sensing devices to be present from when my feet hit the floor in the morning to when I hit the sack at night, no matter what arguments for social benefit they come up with for such a level of observation and control.

I'm a reasonable, law-abiding citizen and they can fcuk off as far as I'm concerned.

Ahem. That feels better. :)

Captain Stable

23rd Apr 2009, 13:36

RJM, I think you're a bit confused about English Law as she is spoke.

Rylands v Fletcher was a case concerning limitations on liability, and contributory negligence. Donoghue v Stevenson was about having a duty of care and established the tort of negligence. Neither were about state interference in our lives, nor did either do anything for establishing gigantic settlement claims.

The late lamented Lord Denning was a maverick in English Law. Pretty well throughout his career he showed great sympathy towards the underdog - the individual suing a company, the citizen vs the state. He opposed any form of secret sittings, and was very much the "people's judge".

We need more like him (and Flying Lawyer, of course! ;) ) and far, far fewer like Mervyn Griffith-Jones and Lord Goddard.

Curious Pax

23rd Apr 2009, 14:54

As well as the part of the law machine well-described as 'ambulance chasers', and the subset of local and national government employees that revel in having control, I believe that the third part of this unholy trinity is the media. How many of these rules stem from a media campaign after an incident/tragedy, or fear of such, on the basis that 'SOMETHING MUST BE DONE'?

Perspective seems to be a quality that has evaporated in recent years - sure there are evil paedos out there who need to be watched for, but do the numbers involved, and the chances of the precautions detecting or deterring them justify what has been put in place?

MagnusP

23rd Apr 2009, 15:07

Slightly off-topic, but Blacksheep's sums are a bit awry. 110000 is actually around 0.2%, not .002%.

What's the arithmetic equivalent of pedantry? :8

airship

23rd Apr 2009, 15:10

Perspective seems to be a quality that has evaporated in recent years - sure there are evil paedos out there who need to be watched for, but do the numbers involved, and the chances of the precautions detecting or deterring them justify what has been put in place? Some might also argue that with the relatively few aviation-safety incidents nowadays, it may also be time to revise safety requirements in order to lower costs and offer improved profit margins to modern airline operators...?!

I remember a very well-publicised (and 35mm-filmed) cockpit incident where a PIC had a youngster on his lap and was heard asking dubious questions...? It also had a scene where the stewardess struggled to keep the autopilot George sufficiently illuminated to avoid catastrophy. The movie is probably XXX or 18-rated now. Whatever, they don't show these sorts of movies aboard anymore... :zzz:

RJM

23rd Apr 2009, 17:09

I may have just demonstrated that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, Capt Stable.

I was trying to say that the expansion in British legal system of the law of negligence together with the associated extension of the duty of care through the relaxation of requirements for proximity has helped those who promote ever closer supervision of ordinary citizens as the way to improving society.

I cited the two cases because my slight knowledge suggested that they are fundamental to the legal rationale behind the increasing constraints on our actions.

Here's an example: Many years ago some students climbed a university building and hung a (to them) hilarious sign between two of the building's pinnacles. Everyone had a laugh and it was written up in the press as a silly stunt, which it was, and that was that.

It was risky too, but that wasn't commented on in the story. If anyone had been hurt, I suggest that the fault would have been considered to have been the students' own.

Today, the university would probably have been blamed for 'letting' the students climb the building; for failing in their duty of care. The university would probably have been sued.

Maybe I'm on the wrong track, but again putting aside emotive cases of paedophilia, I'm concerned that society seems to be walking willingly into conditions of increasing control, and loss of personal freedoms.

Why not blame the lawyers, at least for part of the trend? :confused:

airship

23rd Apr 2009, 17:41

Why not blame the lawyers, at least for part of the trend? But presumably, you'd have to employ another lawyer if you seriously wanted to pursue the case...?! :}

Meanwhile, government departments go about their business as usual, safer from being prosecuted for any lack of due care or attention. And kiddies at day-care go about all-day with dirty bottoms (or it was the excitement of being reunited with their parents during the last 10 minutes of care which was the reason)...?

Both government and business are responsible (as usual, the religious authorities stood by innocently...). Not content with having put to work both man and wife in the average family household in order to pay off the mortgage and meet modern day living costs, they would like us all to indemnify the government too, when it concerns the very child-care and other schemes put in place originally to allow both man and wife to go out to work...?!

God bless Arthur Scargill and Tony Benn!

flash8

23rd Apr 2009, 19:29

God bless Arthur Scargill and Tony Benn!

Now't wrong with Arthur and Wedgie!

Wasn't their a case around 8 years ago of a TV Presenter arrested for taking pictures of her kid in the bath? At the time I viewed the case with incredulity.

I don't live in the UK now but a country where you can smile at a strange child in the street (and the delightful lad or lassie smiles back) - one of life's joys (must be getting old...).

Do that in the UK you are automatically assumed to be a "pervert"... what the heck has happened? If you look at it rationally it sound almost crazy!

Assumed a Pervert for smiling!

What has the UK become?

RJM

23rd Apr 2009, 23:25

What has the UK become?

I think it's still becoming *and not in the adjectival sense) if the number of references to CCTV on The Bill is anything to go by.

Something similar is happening here in Australia too. I'd call it an industry, in fact.

My generation grew up with what you could call loose parental control.

Now, 'stranger danger' is drilled into children and mothers, along with fear of 'germs' and sunlight (the last probably not a problem in the UK!).

Schools are eager to fulfill their duty of care, and the result is that all you ever see is clean kids! They never get dirt on themselves any more, let alone play unsupervised.

Without being too nostalgic, my friends and I roamed far and wide, well outside any adult supervision. We had cuts and bruises and even broken limbs, but we had fun and we learned a lot.

As to the stranger danger which keeps children under such tight supervision, like curious pax I wonder if the statistics show that the incidence is any greater now than it's ever been, and whether the careful sheltering does any good anyway.

Some might also argue that with the relatively few aviation-safety incidents nowadays, it may also be time to revise safety requirements in order to lower costs and offer improved profit margins to modern airline operators...?!

airship, at least the aviation industry has figures to show if we could get away with that, but I also think of a mate of mine who needs a regular lithium sandwich. They give him the drug, and he's fine, off he goes. So fine, that he decides he doesn't need the medication, because he's ok now. So he stops tsaking the stuff, and a week later, he's off the rails again, and the doctors put him back on lithium or whatever...

Maybe inherent reliability is now be such that further maintenance could be cut. Is there any industry body working on that sort of thing - reducing maintenance, or is it only manufacturers? I don't suppose the unions would welcome the 100% reliable or maintenance-free engine, for example.

mizwings

24th Apr 2009, 14:25

A friend of mine is a Sales Rep for Nestle and was at his local off license ( one of his calls) Nestle had just launched a new product, so said mate goes to his car, gets some samples out and starts handing them to the kids to try. A while later the cops arrived at his house.Someone saw him handing out the sweets in the crowded shop. This numpty followed him home and then phoned the police. He had to go to the shop where they had it all on CCTV. Fortunately after a while the police realized my mate wasnt a dirty old man who lured children with sweeties. :eek:

Sprogget

24th Apr 2009, 14:45

Although whilst not a dirty old man, he was indeed trying to lure them with sweeties. presumably to buy more sweeties!:p

airship

24th Apr 2009, 15:44

I reckon that the British Army / RAF / Royal Navy etc. recruitment departments ought to be brought to answer to the nation's highest courts also. Unless I'm very much mistaken, they're regularly allowed access to (if not actually invited by those responsible) into both public and private schools throughout this great kingdom. In order to encourage youngsters (who're not yet old enough to vote or even have sex legally) into joining establishments which will train them how to kill their fellow men very efficiently, earn a decent living doing so and also 'see the world'? Now that's pretty grotesque, wouldn't you agree...?! :uhoh:

RJM

24th Apr 2009, 16:11

The old CCTV. Best thing about Midsomer Murders is that the plots are never resolved by CCTV. A lethal place to live, though. Even a horse died this week!